DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,145 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the issued patent have only differences in language from the pending claims, while in some instances are verbatim and identical. Furthermore, the independent claims of the issued patent are more detailed than the pending independent claims in the application (except for the column adders limitations), and would fully anticipate the independent claims in the pending application (except for the column adders). See table below for correspondence.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US 2020/0348416) in view of Mellot (US 2021/0063240).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Sakaguchi teaches a system, method and electronic circuit for suppressing ambient light in a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device [0091-95; 0101-4; 0108-09; 0112-13; 0125; 0128-29; 0161-62; 0278-79; 0283], comprising: a plurality of columns of macro-pixels on a photodetector [0091-95; 0101-4; 0108-09; 0112-13; 0125; 0128-29; 0161-62; 0278-79; 0283], a plurality of adders, each adder configured to construct output from each macro- pixel in the one column into a multi-level digital signal. [0140-57; 0214-17]. Sakaguchi does not explicitly teach - but Mellot teaches wherein only one column of the plurality of columns is to receive one or more reflected photons at a time [0067]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Sakaguchi to include using one column for detection at a time to reduce background noise, improve accuracy of distance detection, and/or improve signal to noise ratio in the desired sub-array region.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Sakaguchi also teaches wherein the laser scanner is to scan for a predetermined number of times, each time at a different angle, such that the turned-on column of macro-pixels is to receive the one or more reflected laser pulses of a same portion of a target object from the different angles [0110; 0283; 0290].
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19 Sakaguchi also teaches wherein the laser scanner to scan for a predetermined number of times, each time at a same angle, such that the turned-on column of macro-pixels is to receive the one or more reflected laser pulses of a same portion of a target object from the same angle [0102; 0110; 0280-83; 0290].
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Sakaguchi also teaches wherein the plurality of columns of macro-pixels are arranged into a macro-pixel array [0091-95; 0101-4; 0108-09; 0112-13; 0125; 0128-29; 0161-62; 0278-79; 0283].
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Sakaguchi also teaches wherein the one or more macro-pixels in the photodetector comprises includes a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPAD) [0091-95; 0101-4; 0108-09; 0112-13; 0125; 0128-29; 0161-62; 0278-79; 0283].
Regarding Claim 20, Sakaguchi also teaches a staircase digital signal [0140-57; 0214-17].
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US 2020/0348416) in view of Mellot (US 2021/0063240), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Ferreira (US 2020/0284883).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Sakaguchi does not explicitly teach – but Ferreira does teach wherein the photons read from the one or more more macro-pixels include one or more signal photons and one or more noise photons [0410; 0474; 0481-84]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Sakaguchi to include signal and noise photons in order to estimate background radiation but maximize signal to noise ratio in the desired sub-array region.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Sakaguchi does not explicitly teach – but Ferreira does teach wherein the controlling unit is further configured to register the multi-level digital signal based on a predetermined threshold [1687; 2115; 2918; 2994; 3177; 3191; 3221; 3232]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Sakaguchi to include producing a multi-level signal and setting a threshold in order to estimate background radiation but maximize signal to noise ratio in the desired sub-array region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
